Originally Posted by Pixelthief
No I don't think that games aren't art, quite the opposite. Rather, think of it like I do; a video game programmer as a writer, and his work parallel to novels. To this end, I've always found the bullet hell games more like Where's Waldo. See, I think the bullet hell genre, specifically in japan, caters to this idea of artistry over gameplay- they try to make the game look impressive and artsy, but at the expense of gameplay in general. A game like Perfect Cherry Blossom, while excellent to behold, really isn't terribly much more than navigating a predetermined 'maze' of bullets with a tiny tiny collision box. I think at issue is the interactivity. I find art in the development of elegant code; the AI behind say the black ops in half-life had a different order of magnitude in design than a spaceship that shoots bullets in a circle, yet not that visual appeal. A game like Super Mario Galaxy has its awe in the well crafted mechanics and engine, not as a graphics-pusher. But a lot of the bullet hell genre devolves into no interaction at all with the game; you are merely tracing a predetermined path, and where other games might have strategy, hand-eye coordination, reaction times all to the test, in these its more just a matter of memorization.

But don't get me wrong, I think that genre has plenty of merit to it. Just, along the lines of the "programming as writing" parallel, I find the bullet hells more akin to painting. What of the equivalent of a Doctor Seuss book with imaginative illustrations- it is not a novel like War and Peace, but it is as much art. Its just the idea of lumping it into the same category which is a little off. Just like how a bullet hell game is better judged as an "interactive painting" than a game. But hey, as a painting, some of those games would make it on their own